Joint-Carving in Deontic Tort

Ahson Azmat
{"title":"Joint-Carving in Deontic Tort","authors":"Ahson Azmat","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190865269.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that non-instrumental, deontic approaches to tort law—like Corrective Justice or Civil Recourse Theory—presuppose an unspecified and undefended non-naturalist account of the normativity of civil wrongs. Linking this puzzle to current debate within metaphysics, the chapter argues that a deontic theory of tort must be a theory of legal grounding—that is, an account of the relationship between torts and the facts that underwrite them. It specifies a model of the logical form of this grounding relationship and then examines whether it is a metaphysical or, instead, a sui generis legal relationship. The chapter then turns squarely to Corrective Justice and Civil Recourse Theory to determine whether they can make good on their metaphysical presuppositions.","PeriodicalId":297088,"journal":{"name":"Civil Wrongs and Justice in Private Law","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civil Wrongs and Justice in Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190865269.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter argues that non-instrumental, deontic approaches to tort law—like Corrective Justice or Civil Recourse Theory—presuppose an unspecified and undefended non-naturalist account of the normativity of civil wrongs. Linking this puzzle to current debate within metaphysics, the chapter argues that a deontic theory of tort must be a theory of legal grounding—that is, an account of the relationship between torts and the facts that underwrite them. It specifies a model of the logical form of this grounding relationship and then examines whether it is a metaphysical or, instead, a sui generis legal relationship. The chapter then turns squarely to Corrective Justice and Civil Recourse Theory to determine whether they can make good on their metaphysical presuppositions.
义务侵权中的关节雕刻
本章认为,非工具性的、道义性的侵权法研究方法——如纠正正义理论或民事追索权理论——预设了对民事错误规范性的一种未指明的、无辩护的非自然主义解释。这一章将这一困惑与目前形而上学中的争论联系起来,认为侵权行为的道义理论必须是一种法律基础理论——也就是说,一种对侵权行为与支持侵权行为的事实之间关系的描述。它指定了这种基础关系的逻辑形式的模型,然后检验它是一种形而上学的还是一种自成一体的法律关系。然后,本章直接转向纠正正义和民事追索权理论,以确定他们是否能够实现他们的形而上学前提。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信